Baha'i and Messengers

[ppp]

1. As you shouldn’t. However, you should be cautious not to superimpose what one thing says onto something else that says differently.

Okay. Kinda vague. But sure.

2. Therein lies the question. That word. Evidence. I ask again in reply: what sort of evidence are you looking for in assessing the validity of a metaphysical or philosophical claim such as ‘God exists’ or conversely ‘God does not exist’. As to the use of sound reasoning, I agree with you here. The use of reason is, really, the only means whereby we can answer this question. Anything else is either self-insisting or will render inconclusive results.

While there are metaphysical elements to this claim, it is not merely metaphysical. When you assert that your god exists and can interact with reality, you are making an ontological claim. You are also implicitly making an epistemological claim about your ability to know that the claim is true. It is that final leg that would have to be demonstrated first. Are you capable of knowing that a god exists? How? I don't know what evidence would demonstrate such. I spent some considerable energy on the question and have never discovered a satisfactory methodology.

3. Ah. That’s telling. Can you say that you’ve read Bahá’í texts? Additionally, as I’ve aforementioned, Bahá’ís have a very layered conception of who God is, so approaching it is not as simple as merely saying the general Abrahamic stuff.

The Kitab-i-Aqdas (yes, I looked up the spelling) and the Seven Proofs - summer and fall of '87.

1. Various religions have vastly different conceptions of God. As such, we human beings cannot ascertain who or what God is for certain.

Or even if any god exists at all, let alone for certain. BTW, I don't worry about absolute certainty. Merely rational justification.

To address your first point directly, though, we’re talking about a conceptual or metaphysical reality, not an empirical one..

As I said earlier, at its base this is a question of epistemology. When some one makes a claim of any type, the first step is to establish that the claimant is capable of knowing anything about the subject of their claim. Up to and including, if the subject is real. If they cannot, then they are necessarily talking about an imaginary character. Even if it just so happens that such a being actually exists.

Additionally, simply because one person cannot make sense of something does not mean in the slightest that it’s not logically valid in an absolute way. It’ll make sense to someone else. It’s all in how a person chooses to view it.

We use term logic in a loosey goosey way in our daily lives. And loosey goosey is usually "good enough" for making everyday mundane decisions. Being wrong is usually not too disastrous. Usually.
But, like math, logic is actually a set of formal and structured processes. In order to say that logic is actually being employed, one would need to be capable of laying out one's process of syllogistic and inductive reasoning. Logical structures are not subjective. The premises might be, but not the structure.

As an aside: What are commonly referred to as the 'logical absolutes' are considered to be transcendent; applying to everything, even the metaphysical. -- A thing is what it is. It is not what it's not. And it either is or is not.

2. Bahá’ís do not claim that our conception(s) of God is the truth of the matter. Connected to this, we neither claim to possess the only valid conception compared to other religions. Every religion (indeed, every individual person) has their own understanding of the Divine, yet the case is that none of them fully reflect the truth.

Y'al kinda do, As for instance, I have heard many Baha'i in real life, and on this forum say that Jesus is not God, but a Messenger. Which is explicitly and directly calling the core of most forms of Christianity an invalid conception. And while y'all are softening your stance on homosexuality (which is good), at its core Baha'i still hold that gay relationships and marriages are immoral. Which, aside from being an immoral position to hold, tells other people, religious and non-religious, that their conception to the contrary is invalid.

Indeed. This is absolutely true.
I get where you’re coming from here, dude. It reminds me of my own childhood days. I would love to ask questions and debate with other kids or my siblings on different things. Whenever I discovered I was wrong, I would feel very embarrassed, especially as I tended to argue from what I didn’t know about or didn’t understand fully (if at all).

As for my own investigation into different religions, there are lots of things I still don’t know about plenty of them, and about which I do my best to keep an open mind on and try to adjust my understandings accordingly.

[nod] As I have said before, with the exception of a few outliers, I suspect that most people on the forum and pretty much alike, and would get along fine IRL. Maybe even [gasp] be friends.

 

[F1fan]

The quote covered thay as well.

Regards Tony

The quote made religious claims. It is only true to believers who assume the claims are true. It doesn't offer any credible evidence or authority in open debate. Your job is to use facts and evidence as to why your quotes are true objectively.

 

[F1fan]

As I said earlier, at its base this is a question of epistemology. When some one makes a claim of any type, the first step is to establish that the claimant is capable of knowing anything about the subject of their claim. Up to and including, if the subject is real. If they cannot, then they are necessarily talking about an imaginary character. Even if it just so happens that such a being actually exists.

This is an important step in religious discussions. It seems most theists make claims without realizing the implausible type of concept they assert is true. It's a pretty casual behavior. Most theists inherited and adopted their religious beliefs so it was never something their minds had to work for to determine if true or not. It is essentially part of their operating software, and "of course God exists, that is what my operating software says".

Gods are in a category that has no known existing phenomenon: supernatural. So to try to prove any given God exists is a large task, to say the least. Compare a claim that God exists to a claim Jim makes that he ate a ham sandwich for lunch. Well, we know from life experience that ham sandwiches actually exist outside our imagination. There are pictures of ham sandwiches. People do eat them for lunch. So it is not a controversial claim, it's plausible, there is no ulterior motive that he would make the claim, and we can accept Jim's claim without evidence.

We see theists want skeptics to accept the God claims as casually as we would accept Jim's claim. Theists don't really seem to understand what they believe, nor how they came to believe it. They are only aware it is part of their operating software and it is a given that these religious ideas must be true.

 

[Sheldon]

That’s exactly what I tried to explain. That after thorough investigation of many years, I concluded that Baha’u’llah was from God and His knowledge infallible therefore unquestionably correct, factual and true.

Those accusing me of not using logic or proper reasoning fail to recognise that I did so when I investigated independently about Baha’u’llah where I discovered He was sent by God.

So I have investigated Baha’u’llah but my accuser has not investigated to determine whether or not Baha’u’llah has the Station of infallibility or not.

No human's knowledge is infallible, nor can it ever be. Your last paragraph looks like an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to me, as logically no one needs to disprove a claim. Nor does simply asserting that you believe something is a fact, make it factual, and of course this:

"after thorough investigation of many years, I concluded that Baha’u’llah was from God and His knowledge infallible therefore unquestionably correct, factual and true."

Is a circular reasoning fallacy. If I claimed that after thorough investigation of many years, I concluded that Harry Potter was a wizard, and His wizardry infallible, therefore wizardry was unquestionably correct, factual and true. Would that be a compelling reason for you to believe Harry Potter was a real wizard? I'm guessing not, so perhaps you can see how your claim might look to others?

 

[Sheldon]

No, I have my belief because of the evidence.

We have been over and over this, and established you can demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence. So that suggests your belief is a subjective one, based on subjective claims, and though you are calling this evidence for your belief, you can perhaps see how this is a little misleading to some others. People set different standards for belief, you would at least agree with that fact, else humans would not have imagined so many different religions and deities.

 

[Sundance]

Okay. Kinda vague. But sure.

While there are metaphysical elements to this claim, it is not merely metaphysical. When you assert that your god exists and can interact with reality, you are making an ontological claim. You are also implicitly making an epistemological claim about your ability to know that the claim is true. It is that final leg that would have to be demonstrated first. Are you capable of knowing that a god exists? How? I don't know what evidence would demonstrate such. I spent some considerable energy on the question and have never discovered a satisfactory methodology.

Re the ontological and epistemological aspects of the question, you’re absolutely right. So, let’s tackle it. Bahá’í epistemology first. I’ve addressed this before. We only “know” about God from our own limited understandings. Even then, our conceptions will be the products of either what each of us discerns from Nature, or from introspection, or from whichever Sacred Text a person reads.

As to Bahá’í ontology. Who or what is God’s Nature according to the Bahá’í Writings? Well, you’ve got the answer from a surface level (your typical Abrahamic conception). However, the conception of God as fully presented does NOT stop here, as I’ve aforementioned. Why is that? According to the Bahá’í Writings, there are actually 5 broad realms of existence pertaining to God. I’ll briefly summarize it the best way I can, but I’ll link to an article or two for you to read at your choosing.

The lowest realm, Násút, is the realm that we inhabit: humans, animals, plant life, Nature, all of this universe, and any other universes which are out there.

The next up, Malakút, encompasses the many spiritual worlds (including what you might be familiar with as the “levels of Heaven”).

Third is Jabarút, the Realm of Distinction. This Realm is comprised of the Highest Heaven (Paradise) and the realm of Divine Decree and Command (your “Base of Operations” as it were). Also in this Realm is where the Manifestations of the Names and Attributes of God acquire their differences in Names, Missions, Teachings, etc.

The second highest is Lahút, the Realm of the Primal Will or Logos, where the Names and Attributes of God exist in pure abstraction. Also here are the seeds of Revelation (the Mind of God, the Angel Gabriel, the Holy Spirit, etc.), as well as the Throne of God.


God Himself is not in this Realm but in the Highest of the 5 Realms:


Hahút, the Realm of God’s Singular, Unknowable, Hidden Essence, immeasurably removed from all conceivable Existence and Being.

Yeah, I know it’s confusing even after my short summary. Bahá’u’lláh was inspired by a lot of Neoplatonist and Sufi thought in His Reflection on this.

To tie all of this back into the matter of how we can gauge the questions “Who or what is God?” and “How can we know that God exists?”, because God’s Essence exists as hidden — far removed from any sort of capability of being conceived at all — we can’t answer the first question. However, we as human beings can cultivate that awareness of some sort of Divinity through philosophical speculation, or observing the workings of the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_cosmology
Baháʼí cosmology - Wikipedia
Realms of Divine Existence as described in the Tablet of All Food

The Kitab-i-Aqdas (yes, I looked up the spelling) and the Seven Proofs - summer and fall of '87.

Ahhhh right on. I would invite you to read The Tablet of All Food, The Seven Valleys and The Four Valleys. Heavy stuff.

Or even if any god exists at all, let alone for certain. BTW, I don't worry about absolute certainty. Merely rational justification.

Indeed.

As I said earlier, at its base this is a question of epistemology. When some one makes a claim of any type, the first step is to establish that the claimant is capable of knowing anything about the subject of their claim. Up to and including, if the subject is real. If they cannot, then they are necessarily talking about an imaginary character. Even if it just so happens that such a being actually exists.

The bolded portion is not necessarily true, especially considering the established fact of this matter: we do not know who or what constitutes God. Therefore, if a person’s or religion’s idea of a thing can be dismantled, it does not necessarily follow that the thing being described does not itself exist. It merely means that a person’s conception of the thing does not reflect fact or reality. Also, if it so happens that that being actually exists, then that being could not be said to be imaginary. Such an assertion is contradictory.

We use term logic in a loosey goosey way in our daily lives. And loosey goosey is usually "good enough" for making everyday mundane decisions. Being wrong is usually not too disastrous. Usually.
But, like math, logic is actually a set of formal and structured processes. In order to say that logic is actually being employed, one would need to be capable of laying out one's process of syllogistic and inductive reasoning. Logical structures are not subjective. The premises might be, but not the structure.

As an aside: What are commonly referred to as the 'logical absolutes' are considered to be transcendent; applying to everything, even the metaphysical. -- A thing is what it is. It is not what it's not. And it either is or is not.

I agree here.

Y'al kinda do, As for instance, I have heard many Baha'i in real life, and on this forum say that Jesus is not God, but a Messenger. Which is explicitly and directly calling the core of most forms of Christianity an invalid conception. And while y'all are softening your stance on homosexuality (which is good), at its core Baha'i still hold that gay relationships and marriages are immoral. Which, aside from being an immoral position to hold, tells other people, religious and non-religious, that their conception to the contrary is invalid.

I see. The Bahá’í Writings Themselves, Jesus Christ is explicitly taught as being Divine. This is as a reflection of God in His Manifestation, I’m gonna quote Bahá’u’lláh very briefly on this topic:

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.”

Specifically on Jesus Christ, Bahá’u’lláh says,

"Reflect how Jesus, the Spirit of God, was, notwithstanding His extreme meekness and perfect tenderheartedness, treated by His enemies. So fierce was the opposition which He, the Essence of Being and Lord of the visible and invisible, had to face, that He had nowhere to lay His head."

In general, though, because we have so little historically on Jesus, we can’t ascertain who specifically it is He was. BUT we have the New Testament, which is – virtually – the next best thing.

As for Bahá’í Teachings on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, while our Laws on the topic do say that, for Bahá’ís, marriage is between one man and one woman, we are also cautioned not to single out or discriminate against people who are homosexual. We definitely wouldn’t throw our support behind conversion therapy. Any kind of forcing of a person to change who they are is wrong. Like people who are heterosexual, God created people who are LGBTQ in His Image.

In addition, I’m not aware of any particular teaching which says that if a same-sex couple is already together, then they cannot remain together and still be Bahá’ís. Every person is held to the same standards of living in terms of personal conduct, and in general, we don’t police each other regarding this (or, really, anything) insofar as our Faith is not brought into disrepute. To top all of this off, we don’t force our Laws onto others. Actually, we’re even encouraged to stand up and defend people who are LGBT from societal discrimination.

So, not only is such an assertion kinda wrong, the issue itself is not even relevant to the matter at hand: the existence of God.

[nod] As I have said before, with the exception of a few outliers, I suspect that most people on the forum and pretty much alike, and would get along fine IRL. Maybe even [gasp] be friends.

Absolutely! From my end, if anyone on the Forums was ever nearby, they’d be more than welcome in my home!

 

[ppp]

Re the ontological and epistemological aspects of the question, you’re absolutely right. So, let’s tackle it. Bahá’í ontology. Who or what is God’s Nature according to the Bahá’í Writings? Well, you’ve got the answer from a surface level (your typical Abrahamic conception). However, the conception of God does NOT stop here, as I’ve aforementioned.



The Kitab-i-Aqdas (yes, I looked up the spelling) and the Seven Proofs - summer and fall of '87.


Or even if any god exists at all, let alone for certain. BTW, I don't worry about absolute certainty. Merely rational justification.



As I said earlier, at its base this is a question of epistemology. When some one makes a claim of any type, the first step is to establish that the claimant is capable of knowing anything about the subject of their claim. Up to and including, if the subject is real. If they cannot, then they are necessarily talking about an imaginary character. Even if it just so happens that such a being actually exists.


We use term logic in a loosey goosey way in our daily lives. And loosey goosey is usually "good enough" for making everyday mundane decisions. Being wrong is usually not too disastrous. Usually.
But, like math, logic is actually a set of formal and structured processes. In order to say that logic is actually being employed, one would need to be capable of laying out one's process of syllogistic and inductive reasoning. Logical structures are not subjective. The premises might be, but not the structure.

As an aside: What are commonly referred to as the 'logical absolutes' are considered to be transcendent; applying to everything, even the metaphysical. -- A thing is what it is. It is not what it's not. And it either is or is not.


Y'al kinda do, As for instance, I have heard many Baha'i in real life, and on this forum say that Jesus is not God, but a Messenger. Which is explicitly and directly calling the core of most forms of Christianity an invalid conception. And while y'all are softening your stance on homosexuality (which is good), at its core Baha'i still hold that gay relationships and marriages are immoral. Which, aside from being an immoral position to hold, tells other people, religious and non-religious, that their conception to the contrary is invalid.


[nod] As I have said before, with the exception of a few outliers, I suspect that most people on the forum and pretty much alike, and would get along fine IRL. Maybe even [gasp] be friends.

[/QUOTE]
I think something got misaligned in your reply. I don't see but one paragraph of your response.

 

[F1fan]

As I said earlier, at its base this is a question of epistemology. When some one makes a claim of any type, the first step is to establish that the claimant is capable of knowing anything about the subject of their claim. Up to and including, if the subject is real. If they cannot, then they are necessarily talking about an imaginary character. Even if it just so happens that such a being actually exists.

This is a good point. Theists surely are not capable of knowing anything about supernatural phenomenon. the reason gods are categorized as supernatural is because they are not detectable to we natural beings. As far as objective thought goes supernatural is synonymous with imaginary since no one can explain any difference. The content of god concepts don't carry any weight, or authority, or power, etc. to exempt them from scrutiny like any other concept that has no discernible evidence.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You are all in the position of assuming your conclusion -- that God exists -- without rational justification.

That is not correct, the signs of God have been given, our capacity to know and Love God is the greatest potential within us that this life can bestow.

"Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him. Even as He hath said: “Man is My mystery, and I am his mystery.” Manifold are the verses that have been repeatedly revealed in all the Heavenly Books and the Holy Scriptures, expressive of this most subtle and lofty theme. Even as He hath revealed: “We will surely show them Our signs in the world and within themselves.” Again He saith: “And also in your own selves: will ye not, then, behold the signs of God?” And yet again He revealeth: “And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore caused to forget their own selves.” In this connection, He Who is the eternal King—may the souls of all that dwell within the mystic Tabernacle be a sacrifice unto Him—hath spoken: “He hath known God who hath known himself.”" Baha'u'llah.

Therr are also other signs that science doe not have the ultimate answer for, such as dreams and NDE'S.

"One of the created phenomena is the dream. Behold how many secrets are deposited therein, how many wisdoms treasured up, how many worlds concealed. Observe, how thou art asleep in a dwelling, and its doors are barred; on a sudden thou findest thyself in a far-off city, which thou enterest without moving thy feet or wearying thy body; without using thine eyes, thou seest; without taxing thine ears, thou hearest; without a tongue, thou speakest. And perchance when ten years are gone, thou wilt witness in the outer world the very things thou hast dreamed tonight."

Bahá’u’lláh, The Seven Valleys, p. 32

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

No, I have presented evidence dozens of times.

That is not true sorry, simply linking sites that contain your religion's claims, or quoting those claims, is not evidence.

 

[F1fan]

That is not correct, the signs of God have been given, our capacity to know and Love God is the greatest potential within us that this life can bestow.

"Signs" of God can be misinterpreted as being valid evidence. Humans are prone to error, especially if their ability to reason is faulty and they have an ideological motive to self-verify their interpretations and assumptions.

So you could be mistaken in how you interpret these signs, yes?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Y'al kinda do, As for instance, I have heard many Baha'i in real life, and on this forum say that Jesus is not God, but a Messenger.

@Policy

It is important to point out that the knowledge of the twofold station of a Messenger is required.

A Messenger is both the 'Self of God', all we can know and see of God and a man like us.

"...Like the Manifestations of God gone before Him, He is both the Voice of God and its human channel: “When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee, I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!”

From this link.
Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 25-26

So Jesus the man, is also the Christ (Annointed One) "The Self of God amongst us"

We have been told we can see them as a Messenger or as God, it does not matter as long as it does not become a point of contention.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

Poor and weak to you, but that does not means it is poor or weak. That is just your subjective opinion of the evidence. I have a different subjective opinion of the evidence.

If it is open to subjective opinion, then it is not very good evidence. Also when pressed you listed 5 separate claims to me, and linked them to one of your religion's websites, this is not really evidence. Of course all adherents of religions, who believe in a wide variety of deities have the same kind of claims they call "evidence" and believe absolutely is true. There doesn't seem to be any objective difference in what you cite as evidence, from any of the others.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"Signs" of God can be misinterpreted as being valid evidence. Humans are prone to error, especially if their ability to reason is faulty and they have an ideological motive to self-verify their interpretations and assumptions.

So you could be mistaken in how you interpret these signs, yes?

Yes that is why we must test the claimed prophets, as we are warned there are many false prophets.

The rest is the journey of faith. A journey to find one's own self.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

Therr are also other signs that science doe not have the ultimate answer for, such as dreams and NDE'S.

False. Nice how you push science to the brink by pushing it to explain the "ultimate answer" as if that's possible.

The cognitive sciences have studied brain activity in dream states and NDEs. The NDEs are explained as being caused by trauma to the brain, and the brain creates a narrative as a means to cope.

And we know quite a bit about dreaming.

Cognitive and emotional processes during dreaming: A neuroimaging view - ScienceDirect

 

[TransmutingSoul]

False. The connive sciences have studied brain activity in dream states and NDEs. The NDEs are explained as being caused by trauma to the brain, and the brain creates a narrative as a means to cope.

And we know quite a bit about dreaming.

Cognitive and emotional processes during dreaming: A neuroimaging view - ScienceDirect

You need to look deeper and not just for evidence to support one side of a story. There is a lot science cannot explain about dreams and NDE's.

Knowing how it may work does not mean one knows of the source of the phenomenon associated with it.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

Yes that is why we must test the claimed prophets, as we are warned there are many false prophets.

The rest is the journey of faith. A journey to find one's own self.

Regards Tony

Why do you need a journey of faith at all? What do you think that achieves?

Could it be a faulty journey if you have to assume supernatural concepts are true? How do you find truth beyond those assumptions without objectivity and reason and doubt?

 

[F1fan]

You need to look deeper and not just for evidence to support one side of a story.

What does deeper mean? Science relies on facts and objectivity. That is as deep as science and understanding can go.

Truth is the only story we humans should want. We should be wary of the imaginary truth (belief) as religions promote.

There is a lot science cannot explain about dreams and NDE's.

Regards Tony

What can't science explain? Be precise.

 

[Trailblazer]

We have been over and over this, and established you can demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence. So that suggests your belief is a subjective one, based on subjective claims,

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.
What does objective evidence mean?

There is no information based on facts that can be proved, so there is no objective evidence, but I do not care if there is no objective evidence. You care but I do not care.

Now that I straightened that out, there is evidence, but how that is interpreted is subjective.
The claims if Baha'u'llah are not subjective but my belief is subjective.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What does deeper mean? Science relies on facts and objectivity. That is as deep as science and understanding can go.

Truth is the only story we humans should want. We should be wary of the imaginary truth (belief) as religions promote.

What can't science explain? Be precise.

Out of body NDE,s.

Dreams where the future is foretold.

Regards Tony